This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
RE: Saxon VS XT
- To: <xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com>
- Subject: RE: Saxon VS XT
- From: "Paulo Gaspar" <paulo dot gaspar at krankikom dot de>
- Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 03:25:09 +0200
- Reply-To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com
You're nasty Paul.
Must have something to do with the name.
Now (a bit more) seriously:
I agree that trying to work with half gigabyte of data using XML
and xsl:key() is a serious sign of lack of periferic vision...
...but turning into a XT fanatic is bound to affect your
periferic vision too.
I mean... a tool is just a tool even when it is a good one.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
> [mailto:owner-xsl-list@mulberrytech.com]On Behalf Of Paul Tchistopolskii
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 09:01
> To: xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
> Subject: Re: Saxon VS XT
>
>
>
> From: Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
>
> > > Not implementing key() is almost not a limitation.
> > > Most of developers will never ever use key()
> > > because they'll never ever understand how to use
> > > this function. ( Same is about document() with
> > > 2 parameters ).
> >
> > Eventually we will, when we have the concept described well enough --
> > especially since the speed improvement is so big.
>
> No doubt *you* will. I'm talking about 'most of developers'.
> 'most of developers' are not subscribed to this list
> ( even they are already using XSLT ).
>
> > Not using key, is like having to use Perl
> > (or any other programming language) without being allowed
> > to use hash tables for lookup purposes.
>
> Poor C, ( and Pascal ) they had no build-in hashtable support.
>
> >
> > Use XT if it fits your purpose, but please do not use argumentation
> > like the above since it puts all of us down.
>
> Nice try. This sounds that you are saying that I'm talking nonsense
> because I'm not politically correct ? There is no defense against
> such ( political ) argumentation and I'l not try ( I"m tired ).
>
> I'l of course stop this thread now.
>
> Those who still think that
>
> "XT has many limitations because it is not 100% conformant
> but conformant engines have no limitations because they are
> conformant" ( to me the only possible argumentation is key()
> and as I already wrote to Sebastian privately - I need at least
> 2 weeks to implement my model of processing his XML
> real-life data without key() ).
>
> Those lost souls who still think that storing massive volumes of
> data in the format of huge text files and then use key() hack to
> 'improve the speed of processing' - is reasonable usage of
> computers - I can not help them ;-)
>
> Rgds.Paul.
>
>
>
> XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
>
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list